Statement from James Welsh 

In 2013 I approached Marc Dantanio to show him my findings on the STS103 mission images. Marc incorrectly stated this was a reflection and nothing more. Marc was wrong but refused to listen or see sense in what my visual  guide showed. I tried to show Marc  where he went wrong and update him on my new findings but his nose was out of joint when informed that  someone more qualified that him had already verified my findings already. Not just once either. I had a second individual independantly verify my findings. Marc didnt like being informed he was wrong. Marc was inncorrect eight years ago and is still incorrect today here in 2021. Now Marc has accused me of fabricating my evidence and thats the final straw for me. He cant attrack the data, so i am next in  line. Here is what this MUFON representative stated on a post i made. 

''Yes it IS INDEED elementary but you seem to have missed even that class sadly. I have tried multiple times to explain this”sighting” of yours to you but you fail to grasp the he explanation nor even acknowledge that it can be a simple reflection causing all of it. ( A simple reflection causing all of it does not account for what is going on throughout the redeployment sequence. A quick check of frames 69 and 73 show that the framing of both photos indicate that this hyposasis is incorrect.)

You have made a “spacecraft” out of an extremely bright reflection and, an “alien” out of pareidolia , even giving it the name ”Adam”. (Wrong) The spacecraft is evident in the redeployment images.  The Alien i named Adam is on STS103-734-58. Marc is refering to the image i showed him of  frame 69 and the possible entity i belive is seen in the canopy of the craft. The ''spacecraft'' is very evident on frame 73 with Canadarms shadow on its hull. How is that ''fabricated'' evidence? 

Some people reach to see aliens in images but you have not only done that but have downright leaped across a giant chasm to fabricate a sighting.

A cube with no reflection where the sun would have illuminated it, an entire creature out of two dark spots and more.

Sorry James Francis Welsh but you have peddled this nonsense (read that “non-science”) for years and it has been fully explained. Light cant travel around corners ,Marc and if you looked you will see that sunlight is on the cube.  

As I have said when you are science free you can make up the rules to suit your agenda.''

Marc Dantaino

Light cannot pass through solid objects and until it can, i am sticking by that science. Until such times as the redeployment didnt take place during sunrise, I am sticking by that science. The details on the craft on frame 73 were matched to the fabricated hull of the on frame 69. 

The only science i used was the matching details, the fact light cannot pass through solid objects and the facts surrounding sunrise and the orbiter and Hubble being bathed in sunlight. 

Science. Lets talk about science. Lets talk about facts. Lets talk about how light cannot pass through solid objects. Lets talk about sunrise occuring as the redeployment took place. These are facts Marc is ignoring. Marc has not got all the facts in hand. Does he know what the object in frame 73 is? Nope. Do I? Yes. I know exactly what it is because i did my homework. Marc Dantanio is wrong. Stanton Friedman once said, dont open your mouth till you have all the facts. Analysis by proclaimation isnt science.  Its clutching at straws. 

Marc is the non-science guy. He refuses to accept simple facts. Like how shadows work. If Marc can explain what part of how shadows work that i fabricated that would be great. If Marc can explain what part of identifiying the same features on frames 59,69,73,74  is ''fabricated to suit my agenda'' i would like to hear it. 

If Marc in his infinite wisdom can explain what part of the sun rising at that time was ''fabricated'' please do explain.

https://www.nasa.gov/content/about-hubble-servicing-missions-sm3a

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oo_1aW6eceI&feature=youtu.be

https://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/shuttle/shuttlemissions/archives/sts-103.html

 Marc failed to understand that I had personally downloaded the redeployment sequence and spent a long time pondering over the details in these ten NASA mission frames. 

I had collected them as i wanted to determine if frame 73 contained a reflection or something other than a reflection. By obtaining ten images , i had a lot more than the data than I had first started out with. 

After determining that out of all ten redeployment images, frame 69 was the black sheep of the set. Frame 69 was number four in the sequence -and at first glance appears perfectly innocent. Knowing that anomolies appear . in frames 68 and 70  both indicated that the object simply had to be in frame in 69 as it was taken. Indeed, something is in the frame- but you need to look. This feint detail was matched to the fabrication on the hull of the craft -seen in frames 73/74. 

This was the first indicator which made me Marc never ever reviewed the entire sequence, he could not have. examine this frame in more detail. 

I strongly suggest Marc reviews this video and listens and watches closely. 

''I like this shot-you can see how bright the orbiter is'' is a big clue. No fabrication required.

Light cant pass through solid objects is the science im sticking with but Marc seems to question my belief. 

Marc also thinks that somehow identifying fabrication on the hull of this object and matching the details in other frames is fabricating evidence, Marc also seems to think that by working out there is no possible way its a reflection-im somehow fabricating this FACT. 

Until sunlight can somehow pass through solid objects as Marc is appearing to suggest, im sticking with the facts. The orbiter was illuminated by a single powerful light source. Light cant pass through solid objects. The difference in the sharp contrast is caused by a lack of light hitting that surface area. The details on frame 69 were matched to details on the hull in frames 59,73,74. 

The spotlight was identified at the front of the craft in frames 73/74 and frames 49,50,51,52. 

The lights on STS103-734-66,67,68 were identified as coming from the recessed areas around the spotlight. 

Frames 57,58,59 have a craft with windows. 

These are facts.  I see your attacking me and not the data. The cube has six sides so not all of them are in the sunlight at the same time. I had them rendered and had no idea what was in them but  you do your research by proclamation and it shows.

cockpit.jpg
58 windows.jpg
38124060_2614700938556250_7571223028617445376_n.jpg
57 windows at bottom.png
38908896_2640969485929395_4632944156627435520_n.jpg
39004231_2640976455928698_1771527018639261696_n.jpg
73-68 with hubs.jpg

Matched-not ''fabricated'' 

The lights in 66,67,68 come from these recessed areas on the spotlight. 

overlap.png
New image - Copy cube.jpg

Light cant go round corners. 

https://eol.jsc.nasa.gov/DatabaseImages/ISD/highres/STS103/STS103-734-58_3.JPG
https://www.esa.int/ESA_Multimedia/Videos/2000/02/STS-103_Post_Flight_Crew_Presentation

 

In June 2021, while performing a overlap of frame 68/73, i experienced a violent flashback to  my first night of encounters. It helped unlock the memories fresh in my mind and within three days , i had also found even more evidence to back up what is seen in the STS103 records. Not only that- but the evidence gathered in the STS103 images would assist in solving another case. The overlap was a 100% sucsess and the lights in frames 66,67,68 were sourced. Frames 66 to 76 had been translated and i knew what was occurring in these ten NASA images.